Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) defines murder - it states when culpable homicide amounts to murder and when, by way of five exceptions, it does not. It replaced the celebrated Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024, with formal changes only. Note that this section only defines the offence: the punishment for murder - death or imprisonment for life, and fine - is prescribed separately, in Section 103 BNS.
What Section 101 BNS provides
Culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused is done:
- (a) with the intention of causing death;
- (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person harmed;
- (c) with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, where the injury intended is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
- (d) with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, done without any excuse for incurring that risk.
These are the IPC's famous "Firstly" to "Fourthly", relettered as clauses (a) to (d).
The five exceptions - when culpable homicide is not murder
The section then carries forward the five classic exceptions: killing on grave and sudden provocation; killing in excess of the right of private defence exercised in good faith; a public servant exceeding lawful powers in good faith; killing in a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation or undue advantage; and death caused with the consent of a person above eighteen. When an exception applies, the offence drops to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which carries a lesser punishment under the Sanhita's separate provision.
Murder and culpable homicide in plain language
Every murder is culpable homicide, but not every culpable homicide is murder. Culpable homicide - causing death by an act done with the intention or knowledge described in Section 100 BNS - becomes murder only when it reaches the higher thresholds of clauses (a) to (d). The line most often litigated is clause (c): in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove the specific injury was intended and that the injury, objectively, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On provocation, K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) laid down the reasonable-person test for what counts as grave and sudden provocation, and held that the provocation must not be self-invited or a mere pretext for a planned killing.
What changed from Section 300 IPC
Nothing of substance. Per the official comparison table, the changes are formal: "Secondly, thirdly and fourthly" are replaced by clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), and the word "it" is replaced by the words "the act by which death is caused" for clarity. The definitions, exceptions and the entire body of case law under Section 300 IPC continue to apply. Offences committed before 1 July 2024 remain under the IPC.
Facing or contesting a murder charge? Whether a killing is murder or the lesser offence often decides the sentence, and that argument is built from the earliest evidence. Talk to a criminal lawyer in your city or browse advocates in the Free Law directory.